Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I

Gossip is pernicious and vicious because you cannot tell truth from fiction because there usually is some truth in the fiction. That is the unintentional main lesson of the new Mark Halperin and John Heileman book about the 2008 elections, “Game Change“. The truth and fiction is fairly easy to separate in Game Change however. Whenever there are many witnesses to an event, it is likely there is truth to the story. When it is a conversation between two interested parties – watch out. The interpretation of “quotes” is also very suspect.

There are a whole lot of lessons for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and their supporters in this book which we will discuss below. There are lessons for Sarah Palin and her supporters too.

But as we wrote yesterday, the main lesson to be taken from “Game Change” is that Barack Obama continues his not-so-secret war on Hillary Clinton. We hope that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are once again fully reminded of Obama’s treacheries and do not for a moment forget or excuse what happened to them and us in 2008. We hope that Bill and Hillary Clinton re-evaluate all their friendships and associations in light of what they have learned these past few years.

All Americans should also finally realize once and for all that the Democratic “establishment” was out to destroy Hillary Clinton and impose Barack Obama on us. The culprits, such as Harry Reid, are now admitting this is so.

Harry Reid was one of many out to destroy Hillary Clinton and plant stooge Obama in the Rose Garden. The treacheries and lies of Ted Kennedy and others in 2008 were brutal. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton must realize that Ted Kennedy was the secret power behind Obama well before Iowa – a fact almost never mentioned (contrary to myth John Kerry endorsed Obama before Iowa and Kerry would not have acted without Ted Kennedy’s approval.)

The Book “Game Change” is a hit on Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and everyone who Obama wants to destroy. The sources in the book are obviously from Obama and his thugs.

Evidence of our assertion that Barack Obama is at war with Hillary Clinton can be found in “Game Change”. Gossip mongers make themselves the heroes and those they hate the evil ones. Obama-loving Politicospotlights the obvious:

Having dug into the book — which is quite good — a bit, one disparity was hard to miss. The Edwardses, Clintons, Giulianis and others are depicted as vastly different from their public images. John and Elizabeth are a vain empty suit and Lady Macbeth; Hillary is as calculating, hard-edged, maladroit, and ideological as her critics have always maintained.

The one character who appears in the book as he’d like you to see him: Obama. Which, one way or another, explains why he won: He was either untroubled by the deep contradictions that dogged his rivals; or he was better at concealing them. (He is also the only candidate whose staffers remain with him, deeply invested in his image and unwilling to dish, which helps.)

One of the most ballyhooed pieces of twaddle in “Game Change” is Hillary attacking Bill Clinton “as a problem” in a conversation with Barack Obama. Who is to believe that Hillary would confide in treacherous windbag Obama? That Hillary might say that Bill would be an object of attack is plausible, but that is not the impression left by the authors. According to the authors Hillary “can’t control” Bill and Bill is like a destructive storm. That Hillary can’t control attacks on Bill Clinton is a possible caveat she told treacherous Obama. But that Hillary would tell Obama that Bill is a “problem” in the sense that he is destructive force Obama must beware of – that is not to be believed by anyone with any sense.

The other nonsense in the book designed to drum up sales is the latest “racism” charges against Bill Clinton. Supposedly Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy for an endorsement of Hillary in a private conversation and then much later Ted tells his friends that Bill said blah, blah, blah. We’ll let Ben Smith act the fool on this one:

One of the enduring mysteries of the 2008 campaign was what got Ted Kennedy so mad at Bill Clinton. The former president’s entreaties, at some point, backfired, and the explanation has never quite emerged.

I’ve finally gotten my hands on a copy of Game Change, in which John Heliemann and Mark Halperin report:

[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

We have several times said that Barack Obama is not fit to manage a 7/11 store let alone manage a 9/11 style crisis (haven’t we been proven right after Obama’s Hawaiian performance on the Christmas Day attempted crashing of a plane into Detroit?), so we don’t know what the hubbub is about. But the point to remember is that these are third hand accounts supposedly originating from Ted Kennedy, who of course wants to portray himself as a big homie hero and friend of the black man.

Bill Clinton is also supposed to have confronted Ted Kennedy when Ted Kennedy called (during the South Carolina primary) to inform Bill that Ted was endorsing the boob. Bill Clinton, it is gossiped, told Kennedy that Kennedy was endorsing Obama only because he is black. This is supposed to be controversial? It is very clear that Ted Kennedy made up the racism charges to bolster himself and to destroy, not just hurt, but to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Junior Senator John Kerry would not have privately endorsed Obama before the Iowa vote without the approval of Ted Kennedy. We have previously written about Ted Kennedy’s motivations for endorsing Obama. We pegged Ted Kennedy as the Barzini of the Obama campaign. All the talk about Kennedy being angry at Hillary for crediting Lyndon Johnson, not JFK, for civil rights laws, is just a bunch of lies. Ted and Barack wanted to destroy Bill and Hillary and they wanted to do so by calling them racists to remove them as an electoral political force – forever.

[For a laugh, this is what Kerry said when endorsing “uniter not divider” Bush Obama: “Who better than Barack Obama to turn a new page in American politics, so that Democrats, independents and Republicans alike can look to the leadership that unites to find common ground.” How did that work out John?]

Bill Clinton is the victim of vicious rumors by Obama and his thugs for saying pretty much what Joe Biden apparently blared in front of Big Media witnesses:

The tensions began in September of 2008 word got back to Obama’s campaign headquarters that Biden had told reporters on his campaign plane that he was more qualified than his running mate to be president.

“A chill set in between Chicago and the Biden plane,” Halperin and Heilemann write in the book, to be released Monday. “Joe and Obama barely spoke by phone, rarely campaigned together.”

And when Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was asked about having Biden dial into the nightly campaign conference call, he responded: “Nah.” Instead, Biden had his own call with Plouffe and senior campaign adviser David Axelrod.

Obama himself was growing increasingly frustrated with his running mate after Biden let loose with a string of gaffes, including a statement that paying higher taxes amounted to patriotism and criticism of one of the campaign’s own ads poking fun at John McCain.

But when Biden, at an October fund-raiser in Seattle, famously predicted that Obama would be tested with an international crisis, the then-Illinois senator had had enough.

“How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?” he demanded of his advisers on a conference call, a moment at which most people on the call said the candidate was as angry as they had ever heard him.

For his part, the authors write, Biden wasn’t pleased with the campaign’s direction.

After a prep session for a “Meet the Press” appearance following the Democratic convention, Biden was incredulous when he was briefed by campaign aides about the ticket’s tax policy. He told them: “Well, it’s your campaign. I’ll say what you want me to say. But after Election Day, all bets are off.”

Clearly these anecdotes are coming from Obama and Obama thugs. Most of the stories in the book are coming from Obama and Obama thugs. Alleged one-on-one conversations (Hillary and the boob) and conversations with Obama and/or his thugs are reported with best light and best interpretation on Obama. All the embarrassments are designed to clear the stage of people Obama feels inferior to or believes he would be better off without.

When the ticketmates talked a few days after Biden’s prediction that Obama would be tested, Obama lit into his running mate. But Biden didn’t apologize – or even indicate he understood why his comments in Seattle were problematic, though McCain’s campaign had already cut an ad featuring the dark warning.

Speaking to his own staff, Biden insisted that it hadn’t really been a gaffe. And feeling a bit defensive, he invoked one of the worst memories of Obama’s primary campaign.

“I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say anything about bitter people who cling to their guns and religion,” Biden cracked, the authors paraphrase.

Joe Biden better watch his back along with Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. All bets are off indeed.

* * * * *

Harry Reid, in an interview with Mark Halperin, apparently had a George Allen “Macaca” moment. Bill Clinton gets attacked as a “racist” for saying non-racist truths, but Reid can say what he will:

Republicans say they plan to press reporters to ask Reid what he really meant when he described a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Republicans are upset that Reid is getting away with what their leader Trent Lott presumably could not. But what Reid said is closer to George Allen’s “macaca” comment. The Reid “Negro” comment is offensive but he will not be attacked as Bill Clinton is attacked – by Dimocrats. Obama owes Reid so Reid is protected. The Democrats are terrified so they too are protecting Reid.

Lott said that Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in 1948 on the pro-segregationist Dixiecrat ticket.

Asked if the episode would serve as a warning to weigh his own words carefully, Reid said: “You play how you practice.”

“If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

We now see how Obama and Reid play what they practiced. Reid pretended to be neutral but secretly he was supporting Obama and out to get rid of Hillary. We’ve seen the Reid duplicity during the health care debates. Reid and Obama have practiced and played pretend support for universal health care. But they play like they practice – with deceit.

The authors write that Obama was not sure what Reid was talking about initially when he made clear that he didn’t think Obama was going to have a long career in the Senate. The two men spoke for 20 minutes, and Obama later was asked by his aide Robert Gibbs what they did wrong.

“Nothing,” Obama replied. “Harry wants me to run for president.”

“That whole meeting was about you running for president?” Gibbs said.

“Yeah,” Obama said, then grinned. “He really wants me to run for president.”

Reid was as neutral as Big Media. They were all in on the gang rape. They were all in on the cover-up.

* * * * *

We started this article by saying that “Gossip is pernicious and typically vicious because you cannot tell truth from fiction because there usually is some truth in the fiction.” The danger with gossip is that you get misinformed and confuse friend with foe or foe with friend.

We hope Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton “walk the dog backwards” and reevaluate what happened in 2007/2008/2009 and make the necessary connections and necessary analysis of who was doing what when. It won’t be pleasant, but it should be done. A lot of things happened in the past few years that never made sense (reportedly Hillary believes, like her supporters that dirty deeds did occur. Hillary reportedly also understands what we wrote repeatedly about at the time, that Obama bussed in supporters from Chicago to Iowa). A lot of people were believed and possibly trusted (like Bill Nelson) that should not have been trusted because they were supporting Obama behind the scenes.

In “Game Change” Halperin/Heileman wrote that Charles Schumer, the senior senator from New York and a powerhouse in the Democratic Party stabbed Hillary in the back. Hillary, according to the Daily News does not believe this betrayal occurred.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign insiders don’t believe reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer stabbed her in the back – despite reports in a blockbuster book that he did just that.

“Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin revealed that Schumer and other powerful Dems urged Barack Obama to run – knowing that Clinton planned to. The pair wrote that Schumer even told Obama pal Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to “take a two-by-four” to Clinton in 2007.

One source said the secretary of state and Schumer (D-N.Y.) talked by phone yesterday and she told him that she “paid it no mind.”

“She said it was just one of the many things in the book that she didn’t believe was at all true,” the source said.

The usually talkative Schumer, pressed on the report, refused to comment yesterday, but vehemently denied the account over the weekend. Several sources said Camp Clinton knew Schumer encouraged Obama to run, but that he also warned the future President he’d back Hillary once she jumped in. And they say Schumer delivered.

We have tangled with Chuck Schumer in the past so it is possible that our views are colored by that past. We’ve had friends who have tangled with Schumer too so our views are most definitely colored by that past. We hope Hillary is right and that Schumer did not stab her in the back as so many others have. But we wonder…

“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Sen. Jon Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat, lamented last year in a joke-filled speech at the Washington Press Club Foundation. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.” Corzine meant this lovingly, but Schumer didn’t take it that way and Corzine later apologized.

The danger of gossip is you can’t distinguish friend from foe. It was Bill Clinton (quoting Harry Truman) who said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”

[More tomorrow in Part II, on Halperin and the rest of the Freak Show.]

This is going to get bigger and bigger. Its going to have legs, unfortunately these crooks will probably sell many books. I think it was put out at this time to seek sympathy for the little “shaft”. Those mean old women have just been horrible to the baby.

Basil9, no one wants to get rid of Reid. The Republicans don’t want to get rid of him because they will beat him senseless (especially now that Reid is so necessary to the health scam). Obama doesn’t want to get rid of Reid because now Reid is finally under Obama’s full control (Obama was a Reid stooge but now Reid belongs to Obama because at any time Obama can remind him of the “negro” episode.) The Dimocrats are so scared they don’t want to lose anyone after Dodd and Dorgan.

The Dimocrats will soon enough want to get rid of Reid – after the health scam vote and once they are sure a strong Republican will challenge Reid in Nevada. Pelousy should watch her back.

SO no one thinks Reid will be able to hold passage of HCR over anyone’s heads?

Confloyd, about the story having legs, I dunno. BM is REALLY downplaying it. They’ve trotted out the head of the NAACP, the Black Congressional Caucus, a black lady
(I think she was on the RBC), Juan Williams and Beckle just in the past few hours all singing Reid’s praises and touting his stellar record on Civil Rights.

Health care reform is “hanging on by a thread,” and one or two votes could determine the outcome of the heavily-debated bill, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd told CNBC Monday.

“Everyone feels, I guess, to some degree who have been for this, that they would have liked something different, and that’s not uncommon when you’re considering an issue of this magnitude,” Dodd said.

Some progressives, for example, are disappointed that the Senate bill, unlike the House version, does not include a public option, he said. Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are two people who voted for the bill in its original form and are now carefully watching what changes are being made.

President Obama’s administration has come under fire lately for putting too much emphasis on health care reform, causing many to question whether Democrats will retain their majority control come November. But Dodd, who is retiring this year, said it’s an issue that needed to be dealt with — otherwise it would “strangle our economy,” he said.

“If this is all about surviving politically, then we’re missing the whole purpose of what we’re supposed to be doing,” he said.

Bravo, Admin! How quickly and accurately you put all the pieces together. Much appreciated.

God forbid that any Hillary momentum should continue or that there should be any grassroots support for her to run for president again. She should have learned the first time when they stole what was rightfully hers. And again, how dare she have higher polling numbers than the false messiah?

The dims must be quaking in their boots to have orchestrated this media war.

Basil9, I think this is part of the plan, Obama can’t look like the bad guy. He will let the republicans call for Harry Reid’s head. If you watch Fox, it on non-stop. You see I think the BUsh’s put Obama in, I know wbboei thinks I am crazy, but I really believe it. The Saudi’s paid for his Columbia education and he has all sorts of roots back to the Saudi’s. No one is closer to the Saudi’s than the Bush’s. Obama came to College station to speak at HW Bush’s library not long ago. It was an Institute of Light convention, which is a republican, global institute.

You also noticed that most of the 60 minutes show spent over 10 minutes slamming Palin, 90 sec. slamming Hillary, so Obama is behind this. He’s threw with Reid and Reid is a problem and so is Pelosi so I think they are on their way out.

There is a famous case in American Law called the Triangle Shirtwaist Case. The pertinent facts are that in 1913 a fire broke out in a factory in lower Manhattan, the exit doors were locked to avoid theft, and as a result dozens of immigrant girls jumped out of the windows to their death. This incident gave rise to the International Lady Garment Workers Union, to code reform and to a lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the prosecution which was led by a distant relative of Governor Whitman put a witness on the stand who repeated a rehearsed story. The strategy on cross examination was to have that witness repeat the story and each time it came out the same way in the same exact words. In the real world we never tell the same story the same way twice in a row unless it has been rehearse, and refined to eliminate the sharp edges. You never get a perfect case–never. There are always hooks in it–if it is true. But if it is rehearsed it comes out perfect and is not to be believed.

The Halperin book which hammers all Obamas opponents but fails to lay so much as a glove on him. It is rehearsed testimony, larded with a few stories which are known to be true, and the parts that are not true are the real purpose of the book. Therefore, it should be viewed as unreliable, and a tactical distraction from the problems of this country which are being exacerbated by this ignorant president who plays golf when we are under attack. As for Halperin he is a traitor.

This in reference to previous thread:
ShortTermer …I left before seeing your question.
I’ve been wondering about that, too, but haven’t gathered enough info to see any pattern. One thing I could add is that people are saying Brown is out there, going handshake to handshake, and he is hitting all the right notes. Coakley is remote, sounding more and more like standard political machinery. Bringing in Bill to stump for her only adds to the machine image. The more party help she gets, the more Brown seems his own person. Independents really dig him. Grassroots on fire for him. Will it be enough to outweigh the Deadwood Dems? Deadwood Dems is my title for those whose party affiliation is a religion – who know nothing, don’t bother to learn anything and don’t question anything, just keep on being faithful Democrats. Deadwood Dems. Dead to the responsibilities of citizenship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s a happy message from Page 1 of today’s Boston Globe:
“Governor Patrick continues to suffer from low job-approval ratings among Mass. voters, a signal that he faces a serious fight to win a second term, a new Globe poll shows.”

My question is, You know Halperin would not have printed that story without prior permission from the Squathouse.

‘Did Reid have any earthly idea that these comments would end up in print? Was he told they might? Doesn’t look like it. Indeed, Mike Allen reports that Reid’s office feels “burned” by what happened.’

confloyd, I don’t know about the Bush-Squat connection but I’m pretty damned convinced Squat has a strong Saudi connection, that they paid his way though school,he owes them and they’re in the process of collecting on their debt.

Maybe you missed the article excerpt I posted showing that Coakley has really performed, walked the walk on abortion for years and proved her courage on gay issues also. I mention those issues because I have the cite handy and it was convenient and shows she has courage.

Of course the MA election is important! What’s less important is possible PUBLIC REACTION to the Dims possibly delaying installing the winner till after the HC vote. (And imo they’d be just as likely to delay installing Coakley as Brown, since she is not a safe HC vote for them; whoever wins, they’d keep the safe Kirk in place till after the HC vote.)

“If this is all about surviving politically, then we’re missing the whole purpose of what we’re supposed to be doing,” he said.
———————————————
That is easy for a prick like Dodd to say. He has been guaranteed a job on K street. It is not about survival motormouth; it is about suicide.

‘I think this is part of the plan, Obama can’t look like the bad guy
_________________________________

Basil: if that is what they are thinking they are kidding themselves. The name of the program is Obama care. It was hatched in the Whitehouse with big business lobbyists who are its beneficiary. There is no way Bambi can separate himself from it.

Brown must insist and force Coakley to establish the senate confirmation date BEFORE THE ELECTION…so that no matter who wins, the date has already been established…the independents, repubs and honest dems MUST FORCE THE ISSUE so that it cannot be left to the whims of the elective officials…a pledge must be made that the established date is the same no matter who wins…

…what kind of a country are these democrats trying to turn us into? so very disappointed in the party I loved for so long…

About BC, I never thought it was any big deal that he’d had an affair.

I had to write an article about Hunter Mountain’s 50th Anniversary and during the research I came upon this; It was at a Hunter weight loss spa, while on a 7.5 mile hiking trail, that Lewinsky spoke about the affair and the blue dress for the first time.

Of course I couldn’t include that in the article but it sure cracked me up.

For Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid” was the theme he rode to electoral victories in 1992 and 1996. For Barack Obama, it’s “Change We Can Believe In,” and he’s being urged to hurriedly revive his 2008 slogan in advance of this fall’s midterm elections. The reason: While voters want the change Obama promised last year, the prez is having a hard time proving that his agenda is what voters ordered. And Republicans are feeding their worries about joblessness, debt, and bureaucratic growth. “If Republicans are able to continue to better speak to the real angst and in some cases anger out there in middle America and drive our historical negative narrative about big and out-of-control government, we are dead,” warns Obama campaign pollster Cornell Belcher.

But the message man with the golden touch is a long way from throwing in the towel and has a blueprint for the Democrats to stave off a November defeat. His solution for Obama: Don’t whine about bad polls, take the moral high ground, and brag that you had the courage to sacrifice political standing to push through healthcare reform and “really big transformative things that move the country forward.”

Democrats say the enemy is angry fringe groups, like antitax tea party organizers, who threaten to whip up anti-Obama fervor. “My point is that there are strong emotions on the left and middle also, and we have to take back patriotism from the fringe elements in our society and call on its better angels to rally the country around a common good instead of further angrily dividing it. We have to give direction or vehicle to the angst of middle America, or those fringe elements will,” says Belcher.

He holds up Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy as examples. LBJ pushed for civil rights over opposition from elements of his party, and JFK answered Americans anxious over Sputnik with his call to fly to the moon. Obama-styled “change,” the pollster tells Whispers, remains the answer.

CHICAGO – Ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Monday that it was stupid for him to tell Esquire magazine that he’s “blacker than Barack Obama” and that he doesn’t believe it anyway.

In an interview on WLS Radio in Chicago, Blagojevich explained he was speaking metaphorically to the reporter whose story appears in the February issue of the magazine. He said his comments were made out of frustration with the way blacks and others who are struggling are treated by government.

“It’s a stupid metaphor to say I’m blacker than Barack Obama, that I apologize for,” he said. “It’s not appropriate for me, a white person, to stand out somehow and claim to be a black person, that’s just wrong … I was expressing frustration that the policies of this new administration still haven’t really been focusing on the great deal of inequities we have in our society.”

In the article, Blagojevich refers to the president as “this guy,” and says Obama was elected based simply on hope.

“What the (expletive)? Everything he’s saying’s on the teleprompter,” Blagojevich told the magazine for a story that hits newsstands Jan. 19.

“I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived,” Blagojevich said. “I saw it all growing up.”

On the radio program, Blagojevich talked more about his childhood and how he saw the riots in Chicago in the late 1960s and the “white flight” from the city. He did not compare his childhood to that of Obama’s or any other black person.

Still, “I’ve always had a strong affinity for the African-American community,” he stressed, adding that when he was governor he appointed several more blacks to “important” posts than any of his predecessors.

The White House refused to comment.

The twice-elected Democrat was impeached and removed from office last year after federal prosecutors arrested him on corruption charges that included trying to sell Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat. He has pleaded not guilty.

Blagojevich continues to accuse prosecutors of persecuting him for routine political deals.

One of those deals, he said, was the possibility of naming Attorney General Lisa Madigan to Obama’s Senate seat in exchange for cooperation on important programs from her powerful father, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

He used an infamously coarse word to refer to the attorney general.

“If I can get this, how much do I love the people of Illinois to make that (expletive) senator?'” Blagojevich said.

Blagojevich is appearing on NBC’s “Celebrity Apprentice” this spring and his trial is expected to start later this year.

Not just Obama, but his campaign team, are having trouble finding the net. Nothing but rim.

Quote from below: “Axelrod said the challenge of managing and controlling messages in a campaign and in the White House is ‘the difference between tick-tack-toe and three-dimensional tick-tack-toe. It’s vastly more complicated.’ “.

Which is why having Hillary as president would be a good thing, she’s already learned the game, AND she has true progressive/centrist ideals. Obama lacks the ideals (supposedly, he’s now being called a “pragmatist” by loony defenders), and he’s not good at the game. Not good because he lacks experience and because he doesn’t care to improve.

In winning the White House, Barack Obama’s team earned a reputation for skill and discipline in dominating the communications wars with opponents. In office, virtually the same team has struggled, spending much of the past year defending the administration’s actions on the two biggest domestic issues — the economy and health care.

The White House has sought to sell health-care reform as a way to make coverage affordable and accessible to middle-class families. But it was also presented at various times as a cost-containment measure, a restraint on greedy insurance companies, a moral imperative to cover the uninsured and, to Democratic lawmakers, as a “can’t fail” enterprise. The president and his aides sent mixed signals on the “public option” as well, voicing support for a government-run plan while signaling their willingness to see it die to get a bill passed.

On the economy, administration officials put themselves at a disadvantage with faulty projections of the jobless rate and an overly rosy prediction of how many jobs the stimulus package would create or save. Once they had put in place policies to deal with the worst of the crises Obama inherited, they moved on to health care and later to Afghanistan. The result was a perceived loss of focus in addressing public unrest about unemployment that has prompted a shift back to the economy recently.

It is an axiom of political communication that the president wields the world’s biggest megaphone and is therefore capable of setting an agenda and dominating a debate. Obama has used his rhetorical skills repeatedly to good effect, but officials acknowledge that there are limits.

“There is real power there,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said of the president’s platform. “But it’s not a magic wand. The bully pulpit does not put people to work.”

Obama’s advisers have learned what previous White House teams came to realize when they arrived in Washington, which is the vast difference between campaigning and governing. Asked what happened to the Obama team, Mark McKinnon, who was a media adviser to President George W. Bush, said, “They’re human. They’ve walked into the propellers of the federal government.”

Axelrod said the challenge of managing and controlling messages in a campaign and in the White House is “the difference between tick-tack-toe and three-dimensional tick-tack-toe. It’s vastly more complicated.”

One factor is the times in which Obama is governing. Double-digit unemployment colors public opinion, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the continuing threat of terrorism frame the challenging foreign policy environment. But other factors also affect the White House’s message management.

Governing lacks the singular focus of a campaign. A White House must manage multiple issues on any given day, can rarely pick and choose its battles, and must speak to many audiences at the same time. Successful campaigns maintain control of their message most of the time. Even the best of White House operations struggle to maintain a semblance of control in the face of competition from allies on Capitol Hill, the bureaucracy and the opposition party.

Those who see problems in the Obama White House message operation say they are not the result of an effective opposition.

“I don’t think the Republicans have mounted this great, disciplined message operation,” said Matthew Dowd, who was a top campaign adviser to Bush in 2000 and 2004 and is now an independent analyst for ABC News. “It’s a lack of prioritizing by the administration and being disciplined by what those [priorities] are.”

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, challenged critics who contend that the health-care message has been inconsistent.

He said that “you can draw a straight line substantively and rhetorically” through all of Obama’s major speeches on health care, but he added that, because of the complexity of the issue, “there have been a number of fronts” in the message war that have required the administration’s engagement. Still, public support for the overall initiative declined through the year.

On the economic debate, former White House communications director Anita Dunn said the administration has always seen health-care reform as a central part of its economic message. “Our lack of success at doing that . . . is one of the reasons that people feel there wasn’t the focus” on the economy, she said. Another White House official asserted that on the economy, “We’ve got a better story to tell than we’ve told.”

Meeting expectations

The campaign performance set high expectations for the Obama team. A Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly, said the Obama team rarely lost control of its campaign message but “hasn’t won a single message battle” this year. Phil Singer, who battled the Obama team as part of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s communications operation in the Democratic primaries, offered a counter view.

“They’ve done a pretty good job,” he said. “The challenges they face are under-appreciated, given the success they had during the campaign.”

Pfeiffer said the Obama team suffers from distorted impressions of the campaign’s successes. Through much of 2007, he said, stories about Obama’s campaign emphasized not the team’s skill but “how we were getting our clock cleaned” by the Clinton campaign. In early September 2008, he added, critics were saying Obama’s advisers were being outflanked by John McCain, Sarah Palin and the GOP message operation.

“What got us through those tough periods, both in the campaign and what I think is now, is that we were not particularly worried about the short-term impact of the quote-unquote message blips,” Pfeiffer said.

Not everyone agrees this White House has maintained that long-term focus. Still, White House officials also question whether anyone else could have delivered a more effective message about the administration’s economic policies, given the steps they decided were necessary to combat the deepest recession since the Depression.

“Believe me, no one sat around in December [2008] and said, ‘I think it would be a great political strategy to start out with a $787 billion recovery package and then move on to a bill to support banks and the auto companies,’ ” Axelrod said. “That’s not exactly a winning political strategy.” Added Pfeiffer: “There is no salesman, living or dead, who could make that popular.”

White House officials also contend that, in the end, the health-care measure will prove more popular in practice than it has been through the long legislative debate.

“There’s a long history and cynicism about such efforts because there are so many carcasses in the road,” Pfeiffer said. He added that the only way to overcome skepticism that government can oversee major changes to the health-care system “is to pass it and prove you can do it.”

Controlling the message

A campaign team has near-total control over its message. A White House does not. “When it’s either legislative strategy or regulatory strategy, you have to cede a considerable amount of control to people who don’t share your interest, even if they’re in your party,” said Dan Bartlett, communications director in Bush’s White House.

White House officials also cannot ignore events, as campaigns often do. “You can pick and choose what you want to discuss and what you don’t want to discuss,” Axelrod said. “When you’re president of the United States, you have a responsibility to deal with the problems as they come.”

Pfeiffer added: “In the White House, you have the myriad of challenges on any given day and are generally being forced to communicate a number of complex subjects at the same time.”

Obama’s campaign skillfully exploited technology and new media to communicate its message and organize in states. In the White House, officials have discovered those techniques’ limits, though they still experiment with them.

The communications office has used the White House blog to rebut Republican opponents or push stories they see as inaccurate. Still, in the age of Twitter, opponents often have an easier time picking apart pieces of a health-care bill than the White House has in explaining a bill’s complexities.

Critics of the administration say Obama has taken on so much that his message lacks a singular focus. “They’ve lost the narrative,” Bartlett said. McKinnon added: “The umbrella under which everything sits seemed pretty clearly defined in the campaign and not so clearly defined now.”

White House officials acknowledge that internal assessments have led them to conclude they have been too reactive and too tactical. This year will offer a chance to correct that problem by developing more strategic communications plans, particularly on the economy and to sell health-care reforms, assuming they are enacted into law.

But Axelrod said the best antidote to all the criticisms aimed at the White House and to declining poll numbers will be a genuine turnaround in the economy.

“People are unsettled and unhappy about that, and they should be,” he said. “The politics will follow the progress, and as we climb out of this terrible hole that we’ve been in, the politics will respond.”

There are so many things that can derail the current clap trap called “The Health Care Reform Bill”. One of them is the ridiculously titled “Cadillac Tax”, which makes it seem unreasonable to oppose taxing the ultra-affluent, when in reality it will screw over the middle class.

The House is rightfully standing up against many of the bad parts of the bill, whereas the Senate meekly rolls over.

The middle of the piece below has these three good paragraphs:

“Health analysts and critics of the tax say the measure will indirectly tax millions of middle-class workers who have high-cost insurance because of their age, health or the make-up of their company’s work force. [snip]

“Courtney says it will result in a middle-class tax increase any way you slice it. That’s a notion most House Democrats can’t support, especially in an election year.”

“Despite the growing opposition to the tax from the left, including labor unions, and the president’s own criticism of the concept during the 2008 campaign, news came last week that Obama had endorsed the idea and urged House negotiators to accept the Senate’s tax structure, including the excise tax.”

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the leading voice in the House against the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-dollar health plans, tells Politics Daily that the proposed excise tax on high-dollar insurance plans is generating heated and vocal opposition within the ranks of House Democrats as House and Senate negotiators work feverishly to meld the two versions of health care reform.

“The issue is far from resolved,” Courtney (pictured) said in an interview. “The speaker understands there’s tremendous opposition within the House caucus.”

Senior House aides tell Politics Daily that during a conference call Thursday between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and about 100 House Democrats on health care reform, about 25 members asked questions or voiced concerns to Pelosi, and the excise tax was the single largest area of concern.

At issue is the fundamental question of who will pay for health reform through higher taxes once the bill is passed. The House version of the bill increases taxes on the wealthy with a 5.4 percent income “surtax” for individuals making more than $500,000 annually and families making more than $1 million. The Senate, meanwhile, taxes upper- and middle-income earners through a payroll tax increase on family income over $250,000, as well as a new tax, namely the “Cadillac tax,” on insurance companies’ high-dollar health plans. It is expected that insurers would pass the cost of the tax on to employers and employees through higher deductibles and co-pays for beneficiaries, regardless of a person’s income.

Health analysts and critics of the tax say the measure will indirectly tax millions of middle-class workers who have high-cost insurance because of their age, health or the make-up of their company’s work force. Proponents argue the tax will eventually reduce the cost of health insurance across the board by discouraging insurance companies from offering the most expensive coverage.

Courtney says it will result in a middle-class tax increase any way you slice it. That’s a notion most House Democrats can’t support, especially in an election year.

Despite the growing opposition to the tax from the left, including labor unions, and the president’s own criticism of the concept during the 2008 campaign, news came last week that Obama had endorsed the idea and urged House negotiators to accept the Senate’s tax structure, including the excise tax.

The issue has become such a rallying cry for labor unions that President Obama will meet with leaders of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International and other unions at the White House Monday to hear their concerns about the tax’s potential effects on their members.

Numerous senators have warned recently that if health care negotiators stray too far from the Senate’s narrowly passed version of the bill, they could endanger the health bill altogether. But Courtney said the Senate is not the only chamber that had barely a vote to spare.

“The House passed a bill by four votes, and that’s as big a problem as the Senate passing the bill with 60. The House has the same problem as the Senate has,” he said. Considering the fact that Courtney has secured 190 signatures from House Democrats on a letter opposing the excise tax, the numbers tell an ominous story for those who think the House will agree to the Senate measure whole cloth. “If you want to get a bill, both sides have to figure out another endgame.”

The two compromises being discussed by negotiators now are either significantly raising the thresholds of plans that would trip the tax or establishing a means test to ensure that middle-class workers would be protected from the tax’s effects. Both would reduce the amount of revenue the generated to pay for health care reform.

If the Senate insists on its version of the tax without changes, Courtney said Obama could lose the support of otherwise loyal Democrats who voted for the bill the first time around: “Yes, that was definitely articulated to the speaker.”

WASHINGTON — US Vice President Joe Biden’s mother died Friday after falling seriously ill, the White House said. She was 92.

“My mother, Catherine Eugenia ‘Jean’ Finnegan Biden, passed away peacefully today at our home in Wilmington, Delaware, surrounded by her children, her grandchildren, her great-grandchildren and many loved ones,” Biden said in a statement. “Her strength, which was immeasurable, will live on in all of us.”

Biden rushed home Thursday from Washington to spend time with his mother, who was taken seriously ill this week. “At 92, she was the center of our family and taught all of her children that family is to be treasured, loyalty is paramount and faith will guide you through the tough times,” Biden noted. “She believed in us, and because of that, we believed in ourselves.”

The vice president frequently sprinkles his speeches with wisdom and wit he attributes to his mother and late father, who died in 2002, often focusing on lessons he learned as a young boy struggling with a speech impediment who worried about being smaller and poorer than his peers. “When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, she sent me back out and demanded that I bloody their nose so I could walk down that street the next day,” Biden said in his Democratic National Convention speech in 2008.

“My mother’s creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. You are everyone’s equal, and everyone is equal to you.”

Jean Biden came into the national spotlight during the 2008 presidential campaign, when she made several appearances with her son.

All these faint damns of Obama as inept overlook the obvious explanation. He’s letting his biggest donors get what they want, while pretending to oppose them, and blaming the GOP. He’s doing the job he was bought for: keeping any REAL reformer from getting in (eg Hillary, Palin, Gore).

For many countries, a Potomac posting is prized, landed only by seasoned diplomats and influential political players. More women now have those credentials, a reflection of women’s advancement in many parts of the world.

Eleven of the 25 female envoys in Washington are from Africa. Four are from Caribbean nations. The others are from Bahrain, the Netherlands, Croatia, Kyrgyzstan, Singapore, Oman, Colombia, India, Liechtenstein and Nauru, an eight-square-mile Pacific island with only 14,000 people.

Heng Chee Chan, the Singaporean ambassador and the longest-serving female envoy in Washington, said it has been a “quantum leap” for women in diplomacy since she arrived here in 1996.

In the beginning, she said people just assumed she was a man. When a table was booked under “Ambassador Chan” and she arrived asking for it, she was told, ‘Oh, he is not here yet.’ “

Many said they are still often bypassed in receiving lines and the male standing beside them is greeted as “Mr. Ambassador.”

“Even when I say I am ambassador, people assume I am the spouse,” said Shankar, who has represented India in Washington for nearly a year.

Maybe WJC will write a book about 2008. I hope he does; it cannot get here soon enough. In the meantime, here’s a great tidbit:
Sarah Palin has struck a deal with Fox News.
The former Alaska Governor has signed a multi-year deal to serve as a contributor to Fox News, effective immediately.
“I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News,” Palin said in a statement. “It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balance news.”
Terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Joining Fox News, the top-rated cable news network, is the latest twist in Palin’s meteoric rise to fame after being named Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential candidate for the 2008 electionhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/11/2010-01-11_sarah_palin_joins_fox_news_as_a_contributor_in_multiyear_deal.html

David Paterson said remarks about Barack Obama attributed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a newly published book are “reprehensible,” but Reid should not have to resign his leadership position in that chamber.

I have said this not only when it was a Democrat or when it was a Republican, that when people properly apologize for these types of mistakes that it doesn’t merit destroying their careers. But I would say that I thought the comments not only were reprehensible, but it’s amazing to think to print a whole book, that so many people saw, and nobody noticed that this ill-chosen remark was in the book? Didn’t anybody read the book before they put it out? I find it kind of shocking.

“I’m just saying that it’s disturbing a lot of people must of have seen this,” Paterson continued during a Q&A after a speech to Family Planning Advocates. “It’s a very intrusive and kind of degrading remark, but it’s one that was probably close to a different kind of way of phrasing it which might have been acceptable.”

Some Republicans, including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, have called for Reid to resign over the comment. Steele, like Paterson, is African-American.

——————-
What a surprise…NOT. Hannity is a mental case. His obsession with the Clintons is a sickness. He is a hanger-on who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist but is instead seen as nothing more than a hack.

‘it’s amazing to think to print a whole book, that so many people saw, and nobody noticed that this ill-chosen remark was in the book? Didn’t anybody read the book before they put it out? I find it kind of shocking.’

‘Usually in the publishing industry book releases are scheduled months in advance. Everyone expected the HC bill to be safely passed by now.’

Interesting. So you think this just slipped through the cracks?

=======================

There are lots of cracks in the pub industry. Seems more likely than some plot that would deliberately attack Reid during a critical point in legislation Obama wants. (Or, ftm, any such plot. Imo if they wanted to attack Reid, they’d use some more controllable weapon.)

CoalCracker posted this comment on the previous article (this can’t possibly help Coakley in Massachusetts – and check out the names of lobbyists which include Cokie Roberts’ brother Tom Boggs as well as Steve Elmendorf and Heather Podesta and Tony Podesta. The final sentence in the article: “If Coakley pulls it out, this is the crowd that will have brought her here. If health-care reform passes, this is the crew that will have won.”):

“With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama’s health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is at right (click here for a better view).”

Mellman’s survey has a similar margin to a Boston Globe poll, released Sunday, which had Coakley up by 15 percent. But this new poll has the attorney general enjoying a wider lead than in some other internal Democratic data.

Still, by commissioning and then disclosing private polling showing Coakley with a significant lead, Democrats are attempting to send the message that they are both taking the race seriously and that the party’s 60-seat majority in the Senate is not threatened. With some public surveys showing a close race over the last week, Democrats in Boston and Washington have grown increasingly nervous about the January 19th election to fill the seat of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

While no professional Democrat believes — or at least will admit — that Coakley could actually lose, the public polls showing a competitive contest have amounted to a wake-up call, alerting senior officials to a race few had been paying attention to because of the state’s overwhelmingly liberal tilt.

But now progressive groups are sending additional resources to Coakley, the Democratic National Committee is dispatching a veteran press operative to Boston and party officials are paying for polls to assess whether she may actually have a close race on her hands.

A third-party candidate named Joseph Kennedy (no relation to the late senator) got 6 percent in Mellman’s poll. Nine percent of voters were undecided.

The data also reveal why some Democrats are urging Coakley to get more aggressive with Brown. The Republican nominee is viewed favorably by 48 percent of voters and unfavorably by just 25 percent, a reflection of not only how little known he is to voters but also the degree to which Democrats have not gone after him. By contrast, the better-known Coakley is viewed favorably by 56 percent of voters and unfavorably by 33 percent. According to the poll, there is also more enthusiasm for Brown than for Coakley.

National Republicans tracking the race declined to reveal their own internal poll numbers.

But a GOP strategist involved in the contest asked “If the Democrats honestly believe their lead is as strong as this poll suggests then why are they rushing staff, money and other resources up to Massachusetts?”

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday the Obama administration has concluded that the best way to pressure Iran to come clean on its nuclear ambitions is to impose sanctions aimed at the country’s ruling elite.

”It is clear that there is a relatively small group of decision makers inside Iran,” she told reporters traveling with her en route to Hawaii. ”They are in both political and commercial relationships, and if we can create a sanctions track that targets those who actually make the decisions, we think that is a smarter way to do sanctions. But all that is yet to be decided upon.”

Clinton’s aircraft stopped at Travis Air Force Base to refuel on the first leg of a trip taking her to Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
She did not get specific about those inside Iran who might be targeted with new international sanctions, but her allusion to Iranian leaders with political and commercial ties suggested that she was referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite group that is separate from the Iranian military and is charged with protecting the Islamic revolution that brought the clerics to power in 1979.

Clinton said the administration’s thinking on approaches to more effective sanctions against Iran has been developed after consultations with a wide range of other countries. ”We’ve been very actively involved in soliciting ideas from a broad range of other countries, looking at what will work, what won’t work, what would have the biggest impact on perhaps changing the strategic calculation inside Iran of the current leadership,” she said.

She said the U.S. remains interested in engaging with Iran, even as it considers ways to pressure Tehran through sanctions.

Asked by a reporter what she made of recent hints from Iran that it might be open to new solutions on the nuclear matter, Clinton said, ”We get a constant flow of feelers from the Iranians on approaches that they might consider. Other countries are reaching out to them all the time, asking if they will look at one or another proposal.”

Clinton said no final decisions on sanctions have been made. Iran has balked at coming to an agreement on curtailing a nuclear program that the U.S. and other nations fear is aimed at building atomic weapons. Iran insists the program is strictly for peaceful purposes.

It was pretty unsettling to watch White House adviser Christina Romer on the Sunday talk shows. She was subdued. She meandered. You got the feeling that even she’s not convinced Obamanomics is working.

Certainly, judging by the awful Friday’s jobs report, it isn’t. Another 85,000 jobs lost. Over 660,000 folks left the workforce. Real unemployment rose again to 17.3%.
Predictably Romer said, “The sense that we need to do more is overwhelming.” By “do more”, she appeared to mean more of the same – more deficit spending, more taxing. And by “do more”, she really meant, “we don’t know what else to do.”

This White House has no Plan B to get the jobs machine going. And it badly needs one sooner rather than later. Of course, it wasn’t supposed to be this way. Plan A – pumping the economy with stimulus, re-inventing healthcare, modifying millions of mortgages – was supposed to be churning out lots of new jobs by 2010. But it isn’t. America’s businesses simply won’t go along. On Friday, UPS upped it’s earnings forecasts – and then fired another 1,800 workers.

And now here’s the president’s predicament: What do you do when you promised to create 3.5 to 4 million new jobs and you still haven’t created even one?

Yes, you engage in all sorts of PR shenanigans like December’s ridiculous “Jobs Summit” and last Friday’s White House announcement of “clean-tech” initiatives.
And yes, you keep reminding the public about the “mess” you inherited – even though you came to office a year ago.

But this is just political cover to give Plan A time to work. In the meantime, shouldn’t you come up with a Plan B? And isn’t it worth considering doing something different, something unexpected?

You could, for instance, take a hatchet to the White House economic team. They’re all replaceable. Larry Summers isn’t a team player. Christina Romer is the architect of the dud $787 billion stimulus. And while Tim Geithner is loyal and saved the nation’s entire financial system – he’s damaged goods. Firing any one or all of them, could give you some breathing space, perhaps a bit of an economic “do-over”. Didn’t George W. get rid of Paul O’Neill, his shaky first Treasury Secretary, early in his presidency?

Sure, it shows a loss of faith in your own policies. But sometimes it’s an act of strength to show your weakness. You just never know. Take this risky grande geste: fire both Summers and Geithner and put JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon in charge. Dimon may be the one man who could quickly give American businesses the confidence to start hiring again.

Is it political suicide to bring a Wall Street guy on board – especially once Main Street gets a look at those monster Wall Street bonuses? Maybe. But then again, 10.5% unemployment at year-end would be political suicide too.

Here’s the truth: any pro-business, pro-jobs oriented Plan B is an acknowledgement that Plan A wasn’t working. Any Plan B requires unpalatable choices. If you pull the plug on the remaining billions of dollars in the stimulus, the nation’s governors will hate you. If you drop cap-and-trade legislation, the environmentalists will hate you. If you put the kibosh on employee card-check legislation, the unions will hate you. But at least, you’ll get job creation. The alternative of course is to stick with Plan A and hope for the best. But the December jobs report is an indication that hope may not be enough.

On Sunday, Romer said, “You know, the first Friday of every month is this incredibly tense day. We’re all desperate to see progress, because we know how important it is to the economy and the people.”

Tense? Desperate? That doesn’t sound like a White House that is confident in Plan A. Nor does it sound like a White House that has a Plan B either.

basil9, he’s has CDS at the crisis level. He just thinks their anti-God. He is such a right wing nut. I he has lots of vices. The ones that hollar the loudest are the ones with many. Rush was screaming everyday, yet he was a dope head.

And now here’s the president’s predicament: What do you do when you promised to create 3.5 to 4 million new jobs and you still haven’t created even one?
——————————
The man has lied to us and will sink our ship and ruin the lives of millions of Americans through his Guiness Book incompetence. His day of political reckoning is coming. Ditto for those who supported him.

Sharpton and Hannity two (2) of the most despicable human beings on the face of the planet….they deserve each other. Bill will once again have to take this abuse and be unable to fight back b/c of Hillary’s SOS position.
———————————-
As for “sanctions against the elite” , I am afraid Hillary is following the weak and ineffective policy of Bambi…each day makes me more convinced she should have stayed in the senate…she would have more power as her vote could have stopped this health care bill and other legislation BO is “rahming” down our throats..

For those who want to support Scott Brown in MA and help him win, here is a FB message I just got from him:

Scott Brown January 11 at 11:15am Report
You can help by making voter ID calls from home. Email Brad Hansen at brad@brownforussenate.com and he can tell you how to do this.
Thanks,
Scott
_______________________________________________________
Of course, money bombs are good, too.

I would love to see these two hack writers sued until the cows come home. It is interesting that everyone and their dog is making comments about HRC and BC except HRC and BC. I admire their strength. I think sometimes silence is golden.

Let assume half of this is true. That some of the status quo politicians in her own party befriended her in public and had the knives out for Hillary behind her back. The reason should be obvious to everyone now as we have seen how Obama operates. This is the key point so many people missed.

Hillary was the real agent of change. Obama is the candidate of the status quo marketed under a different skin color and a tent shoe act. And if there is anything a status quo politician hates it is change. Where are those monkey feces when we need them. Rotten tomatoes are not enough for these Judases.

Better question: why would any Hillary supporter vote for these back stabbers. The best thing these Republicans have going for them at this point is they are not Dimocrats. But the real target of wrath must be Obama. He will wreck this country.

This thing will blow over. Six months from now people will be talking about the problems of this country. A year from now they will be talking about how Obama is destroying American. This thing has only one direction to go–down.

In Evelyn Waugh’s novel “Scoop,” the best book on journalism ever written, Lord Copper, proprietor of the Daily Beast, is followed around by a flunkie who responds to every statement he makes. When Lord Copper says something that is true, the flunkie says, “Absolutely, Lord Copper.” When he says something that is false, the flunkie says, “Up to a point, Lord Copper.”

American politicians and public officials are not followed around by such aides. But the press and public opinion can and often do perform the function of Lord Copper’s flunkie.

Such has been the case in the Obama administration’s responses to the would-be Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

On Dec. 27, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano went on the Sunday shows and said, “The system worked.” The response was loud and unmistakable. Up to a point, Madame Secretary.

The next day, Barack Obama briefly interrupted his Hawaii vacation and, before hitting the links, referred to the “alleged” bomber as a “suspect” and “an isolated extremist.” The response was less strident but plain. Up to a point, Mr. President.

In “Scoop,” Lord Copper seems unflummoxed when his flunkie responds to his declaration that Tokyo is the capital of China, “Up to a point, Lord Copper.” On the Christmas bomber, Obama and his appointees have shown themselves capable of learning, albeit slowly, from the responses of the public and the press.

Thus, late in the afternoon on Jan. 7, the 13th day after Christmas, in a twice-postponed press appearance, we heard the president, Napolitano and terrorism adviser John Brennan admit that the system didn’t work and that the would-be bomber was not isolated and was a very specific and familiar kind of extremist.

Obama confessed “a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.” And the president who has junked the term “war on terror” admitted: “We are at war. We are at war against al-Qaida, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again.”

Absolutely, Mr. President.

A chastened Secretary Napolitano acknowledged “systemic failure.”

Absolutely, Madame Secretary.

The six-page summary of the White House review compiled by Brennan, rather than attacking the Bush administration’s policies as Obama has so often done, noted that “the work by America’s counterterrorism community has had many successes since 9/11.” It confessed that analysts missed available “derogatory information” that should have put Abdulmutallab on the terrorist watch list and, astonishingly, that “a misspelling of Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name resulted in the State Department not believing that he did not have a valid U.S. visa.”

Absolutely, Mr. Brennan.

Left unaddressed by Obama, Napolitano and Brennan on Jan. 7 was the administration’s almost instant decision to place Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system, where he had a right to a lawyer who could advise him to remain silent, rather than keep him in military detention, as permitted by law. Abdulmutallab was talking to authorities when he was originally detained but, once provided with a lawyer, seems to have shut up.

That left the government unable to question him about what he did in Yemen, who recruited him, who had dispatched him on his mission and who trained him in the use of chemical explosives. We couldn’t find out what he knows about paramilitary training facilities or the identities of the other terrorists who he reportedly said were ready to launch other attacks.

On a Jan. 3 Sunday talk show, Brennan, ignoring such considerations, said there was no downside in putting the terrorist in the criminal justice system.

Up to a point, Mr. Brennan.

It has been argued by no less a polemicist than Michael Kinsley that the decision was right because Abdulmutallab was in the United States. But it was not his intention to enter the United States (except as body parts), nor did Customs admit him legally to the country.

Not surprisingly, Obama has avoided this issue in public. On Jan. 7, he asserted that “the buck stops with me” and said, “As president, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people.”

Sounds good. But if you connect the dots, including the decision to give the Christmas bomber a lawyer and to allow him to clam up, the response has to be: Up to a point, Mr. President.

I think Hillary intends to let this nonsense blow over and address it at a later time. When you are not running for election–and she is not at this moment, that can be a wise strategy. Reid was a total fool to admit this. A total fool. It brings disgrace on him and on the party.

But it was foolish on Halperins part for this reason. It trashes Sarah Palin. Sara is the heroine of the The Tea Party movement. They dislike status quo republicans with a passion, and what is Halperin but that. Thus, the practical effect of Halperins efforts may be to divide the anti Obama vote. It that case, may of Halperin may come to regret his decision.

Suddenly, I find myself nostalgic for Bill Clinton. It comes as a shock. Back in 1996, I denounced his “breathtaking view of the ability and obligation of government to plan the economy” and his “profoundly anti-individualist ideas.”

But now I have a hazy memory of the Clinton years as a sort of Golden Age. Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small, and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.

Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government. In his first two years, with a Democratic Congress, Mr. Clinton supported a health care takeover, an economic stimulus bill, an energy tax, an income-tax increase, a gasoline-tax increase, and even a retroactive tax increase on income earned before he was president. Though most of that never made it to his signing desk, it was still a bigger-government agenda than voters had expected from a guy who called himself “a new kind of Democrat.”

So voters kicked the Democrats out of Congress. President Clinton grudgingly proclaimed that “the era of big government is over.” And you could almost believe he meant it, especially compared to President Obama’s rallying cry, “Government must lead the way,” and his program based on that vision.

Spending. Federal spending rose by 32 percent during the eight years of the Clinton administration, compared with 83 percent under President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama, in the face of a deficit racing past a trillion dollars, declared Mr. Bush a skinflint and called for an $800 billion “stimulus” bill, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with 9,000 earmarks, a $30 billion Afghanistan surge, and, of course, a health care bill he claims will cost “only” a trillion dollars (more likely $2.5 trillion) over 10 years.

Adjusted for inflation, expenditures rose only 1.5 percent a year under Mr. Clinton. Thanks to robust economic growth, federal spending as a share of GDP fell from 21.4 percent in 1993 to 18.5 percent in 2001, and a $255 billion deficit turned into a $128 billion surplus.

During the years of divided government, the Republican Congress managed to cut Mr. Clinton’s domestic spending requests by an average of $9 billion each year. By contrast, a Republican Congress passed non-defense budgets that were an average of $16 billion more than President Bush proposed each year. And so far this year, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have competed to see who could spend more, apparently unconcerned about a national debt that may soon exceed 100 percent of GDP.

Free Trade. Mr. Clinton famously supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), even though most Democrats in Congress opposed it. He backed the Uruguay Round Agreements that created the World Trade Organization, and he expanded free trade with Africa and China. Dan Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, says that “Clinton refrained from engaging even in petty protectionism. He resisted steel tariffs, and less tangibly, he exercised real leadership for trade expansion.”

Candidate Obama promised to rewrite NAFTA, jeopardizing relations with Canada and Mexico. President Obama has criticized protectionism when asked, but imposed a 35 percent tariff on imports of tires from China and has ignored pending opportunities to expand trade with Panama, Colombia and South Korea.

Regulation. Mr. Clinton did plenty of regulating, but also worked to modernize regulation in light of changing technology and economic conditions. He worked with Republicans to repeal the New Deal restrictions on interstate banking and the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, thus promoting financial innovation, greater international competitiveness and cheaper and more convenient financial services. He lifted legal barriers to using electronic technology to create contracts and send legal notices. He signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a deregulatory bill that allowed more competition in the telephone, cable television and broadcasting industries.

Mr. Obama, to say the least, has shown no interest in deregulation. He blames Clinton-era deregulation for the financial crisis. Clueless about the real cause of the housing price collapse, he is trying to mandate yet more risky lending by banks. He wants a massive new financial regulatory system, in the naive hope that yet more regulators would anticipate, identify and prevent the problems that current regulatory agencies missed. And his regulators are crafting new rules for everything from the Internet to the light bulbs in your home.

Welfare. Mr. Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, but he did eventually sign a landmark reform bill in 1996. He signed a bill to ratchet down farm subsidies. There were even hints that he might support partial privatization of Social Security, until he ran into scandal trouble in 1998.

Mr. Obama reversed part of Mr. Clinton’s reform in his first major piece of legislation, the stimulus bill, which contained $3 billion to help states pay for added welfare recipients, thus discouraging states from getting people off welfare rolls and into jobs. The stimulus also dramatically expanded the number of Americans eligible for Medicaid. More than 36 million people are now on food stamps – one in eight Americans – and the Obama administration is pressuring states to sign up more.

Come back, Bill, all is forgiven. Or most, anyway. As long as you bring a Republican Congress with you.

&&&
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of “Libertarianism: A Primer” and “The Politics of Freedom.”

Lou dobbs is currnetly lashing out at Bill for his remarks…saying they are much worse than Reids. Bill is in a tough spot. I don’t see his comment as racist but as a comment on O’s lack of experience…..but he can hardly say that publicly as he campaigned for and supports O.

In Bill’s lifetime, African Americans were not limited to serving coffee. There were black congressman and senators from the time Bill was a teenager. Little Rock was desegregated in 1957 when Bill was 11 years old. Edward Brook was an African American senator in the late sixties. There were four African American congressional reps by 1965. But Teddy Kennedy, born in 1932, is a few years older and remembers civil rights as an issue to be debated. The Kennedys were not on board from the get go. JFK had to make an intellectual and emotional journey to get there. RFK was fully on board, and wholistically so, from the point of his campaign.

As people around you accuse Clinton of being racist, remind that vigorously that the Clinton foundation provides AIDS medication free of charge to hundreds of thousands of impoverished Africans who would not be alive, save for Bill getting up every day and raising money to buy their care. Odd behavior for a racist. And what is it that Obama has done for people in Africa? Heck, what has he done for African Americans in Chicago who need his help? Nothing that I know of. Perhaps Obama cannot even see charity and compassion in action.

The comment in question is organic to people who are older than Bill. It’s bullshit.

In Bill’s lifetime, African Americans were not limited to serving coffee. There were black congressman and senators from the time Bill was a teenager. Little Rock was desegregated in 1957 when Bill was 11 years old. Edward Brook was an African American senator in the late sixties. There were four African American congressional reps by 1965. But Teddy Kennedy, born in 1932, is a few years older and remembers civil rights as an issue to be debated. The Kennedys were not on board from the get go. JFK had to make an intellectual and emotional journey to get there. RFK was fully on board, and wholistically so, from the point of his campaign.

As people around you accuse Clinton of being racist, remind that vigorously that the Clinton foundation provides AIDS medication free of charge to hundreds of thousands of impoverished Africans who would not be alive, save for Bill getting up every day and raising money to buy their care. Odd behavior for a racist. And what is it that Obama has done for people in Africa? Heck, what has he done for African Americans in Chicago who need his help? Nothing that I know of. Perhaps Obama cannot even see charity and compassion in action.

The comment in question is organic to people who are older than Bill. It’s bullshit.
———————————————————————————–
I think that should be the final word on the entire subject. Brilliant. The story is a fabrication. This comment should go viral–and be posted at places like HuffPo who are pouring gasoline on it. The people who want to believe it will believe it. Those who do not want to believe it will disbelieve it. But those in the middle, including many AAs need to hear what you have posted. That is the audience that needs to know the truth. If I had to guess I would say this remark emanated from Kennedy who lived through the period you mentioned. He was a man of low moral character who wanted to see Camelot again and wanted to a political heir worth of the family name.

Fox and its scumbag mudslingers are desparately trying to avoid any mention of Hillary and how admired she is by the world leaders,even those that Obama is courting.He is damaging this country in a way that will be difficult for anyone to restore.His supporters are still waiting for the stash he promised them to get their votes.We must support Hillary now more than ever.

Oh, and Rosa Parks was 1955 when Bill was 9 years old. How could I forget that? The point that was being made as Bill grew up is that African Americans are not subordinate, and judging by Bill’s actions as a professor, as a governor, as a president and as a former president, with a decades long history now of working effectively on behalf of African Americans, it’s clear the lesson was taken to heart.

I don’t even think Teddy made the comment, to be perfectly honest. I think someone made it up and attributed it to Teddy to give it provenance.

What is striking to me in all this is a book comes out that smears all the other Democrats while protecting Obama. His participation in the Democratic continues at the detriment of almost everyone else in the Democratic party. Who could have cooked up such a divisive figure?

Anyway, as for Bill, actions speak louder than words. From his time at the University, when he spent his Saturdays tutoring law students to assure their graduation, to his work as governor, and to the record low African American unemployment and record high African American wages during his presidency, to his work in Africa with the Clinton foundation, it is clear that Bill Clinton does not regard African Americans or Africans as second class citizens less deserving of opportunity, respect or compassion.

They are saying that the National Enquirer deserve the Pulitazer for it reporting of the Edwards story. The regular news media ignored it because Edwards said to. The deadline is February.

I think Big Pink deserves the Pulizer. It is time to move forward. Blogs are a better source of legitimate news, than the regular news channels.

Why, because they report everything, and then make sure if they get legitimate contradictory information, they publish that also. But they do not suppress or filter the information that is being circulated. They put it out there for us all to see.

You cannot tell me that the major newspapers did not know about Edwards. They suppressed the information so that it would hurt HRC to the max, therefore, not letting us decide, but they decided.

The Freedom of the press is no long freedom to know all the information, it is freedom to know the information we choose you to know that will maximize our political agenda.

This book is a hit job on everybody but Obama. 80%(!?) of the sourcing on Clinton campaign came from Solis Doyle. Admin is right — this is still Obama’s war on Hillary. It is really shameless and very destructive. It is painful to read what these media whores are doing to these people, not just the Clintons but others as well.

This garbage of a book is a waste of time and is a distraction from the important issues of the day, including the health insurance debacle, the declining economy, and the destruction of the middle class. Bunch of hearsay and paraphrasing. Garbage. Nothing negative about Obama. Hmmm…….. That says a lot right there.

On the Coakley-Brown election–NBC is reporting Obama sent an email to voters today pleading for volunteers and asking people to get out the vote. If Coakley is well ahead in the polls would the White House be doing this? Just seems interesting to me…

This book is a new rationalization for the liberal elite of which media whores are a big part who supported Obama — they are saying, see we could not have voted for these other loonies. How convenient!

pm317, I’m certain you’re right about Solis-Doyle being a big source for the book.

As for Ben Smith’s premise that the Clinton “machine” is dead, the old version of it died when she became SoS. If she runs for president again, she was going to have a whole new campaign staff anyhow; the 2008 group wasn’t going to be reprised, believe me.

I frankly don’t really think it matters if no one’s rebutting what’s in the book. She’s moved well beyond what happened in 2008 and has become a terrific SoS.

The Ben Smiths of this world were hoping to see a Clinton melt down. Instead, with actual Clinton accomplishments as a defense, the Clintons are ignoring the book (as they did Klein’s before the campaign) and killing the fun the media elite hoped to have at their expense. Basically, the book and Ben Smith’s article are simple trolling as we’ve come to recognize it on the internet. And trolls are always disappointed when their provocations are ignored.

No one who has done as much for ordinary people as the Clintons have ever stands alone.

I think they blew Reid’s statements out of proportion so that they can line people up to defend him. Then they thought they could show how the Clinton people are really silent. It is not really far fetched. These Obama fuckers are not really interested in governing. They want message control and you can’t have a Clinton doing good stuff out there, better than Obama.

A second failure of the excerpt, at least, is to answer the question “Just how wacky is Elizabeth?” and to get to the heart of her actual personality. True, she’s depicted as a snob in heavy denial who flies into inappropriate rages. But is that all? If she’s wacky enough, remember, Edwards’ decision to take up with another woman may be more explicable, if not excusable. …

—————-
He wants an accurate portrayal of Elizabeth Edwards’ wackiness to decide if it was justified for John to take up with another woman. Who are these crazy people masquerading as journalists?

The Ben Smiths of this world were hoping to see a Clinton melt down. Instead, with actual Clinton accomplishments as a defense, the Clintons are ignoring the book (as they did Klein’s before the campaign) and killing the fun the media elite hoped to have at their expense.

Memo to media: Statement attributed to Clinton in Game Change is not a direct quote

January 11, 2010
by Terry Krepel

On page 218 of their book Game Change, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin write:

But Bill [Clinton] then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

Note the lack of quote marks around the statement attributed to Clinton. That means it’s a paraphrase, not a direct quote. That means that Heilemann and Halperin did not or could not verify that Clinton said those exact words — their source is not Kennedy or Clinton, but someone else who was supposedly aware of a later, alleged conversation between Kennedy and a “friend.” As The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent points out, the authors do indeed admit in their book: “Where dialog is not in quotes, it is paraphrased, reflecting only a lack of certainly on the part of our sources about precise wording, not about the nature of the statements.”

As Sargent notes, Clinton may have said something along those lines, but: “In cases like these, when people are hinting at racism, the precise wording is everything. And in this case, the whole claim is based on an anonymous source’s recollection that someone who has now passed away told him or her that Clinton said something like this.”

So why are news organizations treating this as an exact, direct quote?

So why are news organizations treating this as an exact, direct quote?
——————————————–
For one simple reason. The country as a whole has come to the realization that Obama is a fraud. They know Big Media failed to vet him and now he is destroying the country. They called the American People racists and it did not stick. And now they are covering for him as he promotes health care deform legislation beneficial to lobbyist and inimical to the American People. For these reasons, the big media is in the cross hairs of the American People and it will get far worse for them as time goes by. The American People want solutions and Hillary is the only one who can deliver.

I think they blew Reid’s statements out of proportion so that they can line people up to defend him. Then they thought they could show how the Clinton people are really silent. It is not really far fetched. These Obama fuckers are not really interested in governing. They want message control and you can’t have a Clinton doing good stuff out there, better than Obama.
—————————–
No. I dont think so. Not with respect to Reid. Remember these are republicans. This is an election year. They want to bring down Reid. That is the main focus. By the same token it is why the jackass from the NAACP rushes in to defend Reid’s statement even though it is a blight on his organization. Also, the Republicans are tired of being called racists and savor the opportunity to throw this back at the dims. And Sharpton is a race baiting lying demagogue so nothing he says should be taken as true.

confloyd, Even though this book has nothing negative about Obama in it (presumably because his aides didn’t dish any dirt to the authers – at some point that will happen, believe me), the timing of this is not good for him at all.

With health care reform in a precarious position, he sure as heck doesn’t want Harry Reid dealing with his “negro dialect” comment fallout. Obama accepted Reid’s apology in the hope that would end the controversy, to no avail. And the book also makes clear the Democratic establishment worked behind Hillary’s back to undermine her campaign by getting Obama to run. That storyline has gotten little media attention to this point, but I doubt Obama wants that embarrassing truth out there, either.

Mercy, the vile and disgusting Hannity has Halprin and Hellman on discussing their latest trash book. Hannity is spending more time on the Clinton section of the book than the others. The look on his face shows that he has thrills running up and down all over his body getting to attack the Clintons again. He couldn’t care less if there is any truth to it…just attack, attack, attack the Clintons. For him good times are here again anytime he can slam the Clintons.

Where’s Dr. Phil when you need him to help a poor degranged guy with Clinton hate like Hannity.

There is a world of difference between an allegation and something that can be proven. The false statement imputed to bill is an allegation, and nothing more. Not only is it unproven but it is rebutted by entire thrust of his life’s work.

confloyd, Even though this book has nothing negative about Obama in it (presumably because his aides didn’t dish any dirt to the authers – at some point that will happen, believe me), the timing of this is not good for him at all.

With health care reform in a precarious position, he sure as heck doesn’t want Harry Reid dealing with his “negro dialect” comment fallout. Obama accepted Reid’s apology in the hope that would end the controversy, to no avail. And the book also makes clear the Democratic establishment worked behind Hillary’s back to undermine her campaign by getting Obama to run. That storyline has gotten little media attention to this point, but I doubt Obama wants that embarrassing truth out there, either.
——————————
Correct. What it suggests to Senators is that your fellow senators cannot be trusted. What they tell you to your face is not what they do behind your back. And if they cannot be trusted then it is foolish to hitch your wagon to a health care deform bill which your constituents despise. Think about it Jim Webb–country before party.

But it was foolish on Halperins part for this reason. It trashes Sarah Palin. Sara is the heroine of the The Tea Party movement. They dislike status quo republicans with a passion, and what is Halperin but that. Thus, the practical effect of Halperins efforts may be to divide the anti Obama vote. It that case, may of Halperin may come to regret his decision.

===========================

None of it quite adds up to me (unless a lot fell through the cracks at the publisher’s). Halperin as Dole’s man is presumably status quo Republican as you say. Trashing Sarah (to protect the GOP status quo) may have been a miscalculation, maybe he thinks they can get rid of her.

Media Matters puts it well:
the whole claim is based on an anonymous source’s recollection that someone who has now passed away told him or her that Clinton said something like this.
h/ no w
mediamatters.org/blog/201001110043

Maybe we should refer to this as ‘alleged unsourced quote’ or ‘anon third party hearsay claimed quote’ or ‘claimed quote only now surfacing’ etc etc.

turndownobama, Because the sources for the book were campaign people, and Obama’s advisers are too invested in his success to dare share anything embarrassing. That’s why there’s nothing about how the campaign handled the Jeremiah Wright problem, but plenty of stuff dissing Joe Biden.

“It could well be” a recipe for disaster in 2010, [AFL-CIO president Richard] Trumka told a group of reporters. “I just came back from southern California. I was in five or six places out there… it is amazing the number of people that come up to you unsolicited and say, ‘I’m really worried about this health care bill.’”

Asked if he thought union and non-union workers will stay at home if health care reform (as outlined by the Senate) is passed into law, Trumka replied: “That could very well happen. A bad bill could have that effect… an [election] where people sit home. It could suppress votes… Look at what happened in ‘94.”

Q-5: did this source of yours see mark halperin having carnal knowledge with a goat?

A-5: no

Q-6: then how did he know?

A-5: he was told this by someone who saw it

Q-6: where is this alleged witness

A-6: oh he is dead

Q-7: let me see if I understand your testimony: a man who is now dead allegedly told someone you will not identify who allegedly told you that Mark Halperin had carnal knowledge of goats.

A-7: yes

Q-8: did you make any independent effort to corroborate that statement?

A-8: no, the witness was deceased. The goat is unavailable for comment.

Q-9: yet you printed it

A-9: of course

Q-10:you do not like Mr. Halperin do you?

A-10: no I do not.

Q-11: you have said bad things about him in the past have you not?

A-11: yes

Q-12: when you publish this negative story you will make alot of money

A-12: of course

Q-13: would it be fair to say that you are a careless excuse for a journalist who repeats trash stories without checking them out so you can score political point and make alot of money, without regard for the truth?

Scott Brown debated Coakley and Kennedy tonight. Evidently Brown won the debate. Someone said something about it being Ted Kennedy’s seat and Brown retorted that it was not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it was the people’s seat. He has surpassed his goal tonight of $1million donation tonight; right now he has collected $1.1 million.

President Obama’s approval rating on handling health care is at an all-time low, according to a new CBS News poll, something that is helping to drag down his overall approval rating.

Just 36 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of health care, according to the poll, conducted from Jan. 6 – 10. Fifty-four percent disapprove. In December of last year, 42 percent of Americans approved of the president’s handling of health care, and 47 percent approved in October.

Southern Born, Martha Coakley has a new ad up attacking Scott Brown. This is probably a very big mistake. Scott Brown had two weeks to bring up his favorables because Coakley essentially did not campaign. While negative ads are the only way to bring down an opponent’s numbers this ad is much too late to have the desired effect.

In negative ad campaigns you have to prepare the battlefield by making yourself liked first with biographical ads – then after you yourself are liked, you attack your opponent. Coakley has not done this preparatory work. This ad will probably backfire and make her seem desperate, and only marginally bring down Brown’s numbers. (Also, note the Nazi imagery with the Limbaugh salute picture).

Southern Born: here are some additional questions for this pseudo journalist:

Q-6a. Did this deceased witness know Mr. Halperin?

A-6a: Oh yes he knew him quite well

Q-6b. Were they close friends?

A-6b. No they were political rivals

Q-6c. Did the deceased witness have a reputation for truth and veracity?

A-6c. Oh certainly. He was a man of integrity and was widely admired at his funeral.

Q-6d: Are you familiar with the term revisionist history?

A-6d: I guess so

Q-6e: Isn’t it true that this man of integrity was no stranger to demon rum?

A-6e: Well . . in his younger days he did indulge in a little Segrams and sew a few wild oats

Q-6f: By younger days you mean into his 60s?

A-6f: Yes

Q-6h: And while he was sewing his wild oats he managed to kill a young woman on one occasion did he not?

A-6h: Well they left a party, he was drunk, he drove into a body of water, she drowned and he swam away

Q-6i: And while he was sewing his wild oats he managed to drive his wife to the brink of suicide

A-6i: Well she had a drinking problem and their marriage was in trouble and they subsequently divorced.

Q-6j: Yet you call him a man of integrity and trust his word?

A-6j: Yes. He had a great senate career

Q-6k: Was that because he was a great senator or because his name was Kennedy?

A-6K: Probably because he was a Kennedy and milked it for all it was worth.

Q-6l: So if I understand your testimony the decedent who allegedly claimed that he saw Halperin carrying on with a goat was a political rival of Halperin, had a political agenda and was not quite the man of integrity people want to make of him?

A-6l: Yes

Q-6m: Then isn’t it true that he had a clear motive to cast his rival in a negative light?

A-6m: Yes

Q-6n: And given his personal history, isn’t also true that he was fully capable of lying?

A-6n: Yes

Q-6o: Then isn’t it true that he was lying when he said what he is alleged to have said?

Some good news. Charlie Crist will be bowing out. He was the Republican Governor of Florida who screwed over Hillary and had presidential aspirations. He was also the kind of passive go along to get along Republican that Obama wanted. Not Marco Rubio. Looks like Marco will be the guy. And I think he will win the general election and give Obama ten kinds of hell. I would like to burn the senior senator from that state bill nelson for the lying two faced backstabber he is. How can anyone trust this guy ever or take him at his word. He looks you in the eye and he lies. My statement is based on the accusation in this book and his acknowledgement of its truth. Never ever ever trust this man. Ever.
—————————————————————————————————
CRIST WILL BACK OUT OF TEH REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CAMPAIGN

The Crist campaign says it is not true, but the writing is on the wall. Again and again the media turns against Crist.

Another blow to the Crist campaign came today as the Republican National Committee’s War Room sent out this unflattering story about the failures of the Crist campaign.

The RNC did that.

But Crist valiantly made a blow stand this evening in Pinellas County. It is his home county. After seeing Marco Rubio win every single straw poll of every single county in Florida that has had them so far, Crist knew that tonight he would win the Pinellas County GOP straw poll. It is, after all, his own freaking county.

Crist lost. The vote was 106-54 in Marco Rubio’s favor. In Charlie Crist’s home county.

Charlie Crist is going to drop out of the U.S. Senate primary in Florida. The writing is on the wall. It reads “Mene Mene Tekel Parsin“.

“I volunteered for Charlie for nine years. I love Charlie as a person. If he was here, I would give him a big hug. He actually called me about this (straw poll) yesterday,’’ said Wilna Varney of Largo, who voted for Rubio. “But I’m a more conservative person and I’m going to support the more conservative candidate.”

Asked if he thought union and non-union workers will stay at home if health care reform (as outlined by the Senate) is passed into law, Trumka replied: “That could very well happen. A bad bill could have that effect… an [election] where people sit home. It could suppress votes… Look at what happened in ‘94.”
——————————————————–
And it would be very well if it did happen. I am not in favor of special deals for union members, but if Obama broke his promise to them (he has broken so many it is hard to keep track) then they must punish him. If they vote for a man who betrays them then they are simply masochists.

Wbboei, the Republicans are getting their act together. In Virginia and Massachusetts and New Jersey the model is the same. In Florida, Rubio is making a claim on the future of the party. Palin too has prepared herself for the future with her book and now the Fox News job.

The Dimocrats are the ones in disarray. They destroyed the winning coalition and now they are discovering their new “situation comedy” coalition is unsustainable. None of this is a surprise.

If Crist does indeed withdraw this early in the campaign season, the Republicans will be substantially organized. All that will need to be resolved is the situation in Pennsylvania as to who becomes the nominee.

The difference: There’s no political points for Obama to score by calling for Reid to stepdown or be removed as Senate majority leader….

(April 11, 2007) – In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus’ show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

Obama said he appeared once on Imus’ show two years ago, and “I have no intention of returning.”

And if they didn’t get you, the man at the heart of the Imus debacle, Al Sharpton, came out in support of Harry Reid yesterday….

gonzotx
January 12th, 2010 at 5:06 am
Excellent Posts Admin. I have been working double shifts and have not had the time to add a comment or two, but have spent the last hour catching up.
I think this ridiculous book is being pushed to take the Frauds disasters out of the headlines. His failures to protect this Country with his golf car cabinet, the health care bill, economy, job losses. etc. BC and HC are wise to ignore the whole thing and not take the bait. That being said, I will contact Dobbs and voice my great disappointment on the above comments. I usually find him fair and have talked to him on his radio show several times. I’m mad as hell at him
Those clips of Brown calling the Senate seat the People’s seat are priceless. David G is a MAJOR disappointment and a paid Fraud butt kisser and Brown definitely got the better of him. I think he made a lot of points with that spot on statement.

Also was disappointed to read about Chuck Schumer’s betrayal and it got me to thinking about all the people who might have done one thing publicly, while keeping a secret agenda. How many of you know that Harry Reid’s son Rory ran the Hillary campaign in the state of Nevada? Anyone find it odd that he was “supporting” Hillary while his dad was negotiating a backroom deal to make Obama president? Does it stink of Schumerism much?

They are going after Hillary and Bill today. The Clinton staffer thats on is saying its really a slam against women. These two men are women haters. The staffer did a good job of discussing and putting it in the context of what it really is. Its a woman hating book.

Good morning all.Good to be back on duty.Finally had my computer restored.It has been very painful watching the Fox scumbags pushing the liars catalogue with no thought for truth.ObamaBin Golfin while Usama Bin Plotin and The US has been Rottin.Thank God we have Hillary out there doing all that she can to save our country from the destruction by the Stranger within.

———————————————————————

Secretary Clinton Travels to Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea

Posted: 11 Jan 2010 05:37 PM PST

Trip Information Page | Interactive Travel Map | Text the Secretary

About the Author: Kurt Campbell serves as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs.

This week, Secretary Clinton will be visiting the Asia-Pacific, her fourth trip to the region since she was sworn in as Secretary of State almost a year ago. We just landed in Honolulu, Hawaii, where the Secretary will meet with Japanese Foreign Minister Okada, have briefings at the United States Pacific Command and give a major policy speech at the East-West Center, which commemorates its 50th anniversary this year.

Following her stop in Hawaii, Secretary Clinton will then make her first visit to the Pacific island of Papua New Guinea. In Papua New Guinea, the Secretary will have an opportunity to view some projects that are involved with sustaining one of the most diverse biological habitats on the planet. And she’ll have a chance to meet with the Papua New Guinea’s leaders, the prime minister and the foreign minister, as well as the governor-general.

When we say “the Asia-Pacific,” sometimes the Pacific does not get as much attention as it should. One of the efforts of the Obama Administration has been to step up our engagement in the Pacific Islands. When Secretary Clinton was in New York for the UN General Assembly, she had a chance to meet with Pacific leaders as part of this overall effort, and we plan to ramp up our cooperation on climate change and renewable energy.

After Papua New Guinea, she’ll go to New Zealand. The United States and New Zealand are working more closely together in a range of areas. We coordinate on our strategies for aid and assistance and the promotion of democracy in the Asia Pacific region and particularly in the Pacific. More recently, New Zealand has been actively engaged on the ground in Afghanistan.

From New Zealand, the Secretary will travel to Australia. One of the things that we’ve seen, in recent years, is that Australia has become one of the closest American allies and a valuable partner on a range of issues, not just traditional security issues. The purpose of this trip is our yearly meeting, which we call AUSMIN or the AUSMIN ministerial, in which Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton meet with their counterparts in Canberra, Australia to review aspects of our very strong alliance. Secretary Clinton also plans to make her first trip to Melbourne where she will participate in several public events.

Laura Ingram on FOx says this book doesn’t necessarily put the Clinton’s in a bad light. It just shows they were fierce competitors. Reid is the one it hurts and the Edwards and of coarse Sarah. Fox is saying all the stuff about the Clinton is old news.

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – It’s been 25 years since a U.S. Secretary of State has come to Hawaii. It was George Schultz, in the 80’s.

This time it’s Hillary Clinton arriving at Hickam Air Force Base Monday afternoon.

It’s the start of her 9-day trip around the Pacific.

Arriving in Honolulu in the U.S. State Department plane, Secretary Clinton starts the new year focusing on foreign policy in the Pacific.

“There is a chance that she could also help and re balance the U.S.-Japan relationship at a key moment. That may be the single most important meeting,” said Michael O’hanlon of Brookings Institution.

It’s a meeting that’s important now that Japan has a new prime minister.

In Hawaii, where east meets west, the Secretary’s mission is to make sure the U.S. remains a power player in key Asia-Pacific decisions, including economic recovery.

“That’s the biggest thing that can be done for Hawaii. If the Chinese economy is moving, if the U.S. economy stabilizes, and grows again, if Japan is able to deal with new deflation rate pressures again and get its economy going again, then all that is good for the state of Hawaii,” said Charles Morrison, East-West Center President.

East-West Center in Manoa is where Secretary Clinton will deliver her policy address.

Here is the secretary’s schedule:

At 8:30 a.m., Clinton will meet with Japan’s foreign minister at the Marriott Ihilani Resort. His Excellency, Katsuya Okada, wants to talk to her about relocating a U.S. base in Okinawa.

At 10:25 a.m., Clinton will head to the U.S. Pacific Command, then visit Pearl Harbor and the USS Arizona Memorial at 11:35 a.m.

At 2:00 p.m., the Secretary will deliver her major policy address at the East-West Center to an invite-only crowd of 150 people, including Governor Linda Lingle and Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann.

Morrison says the significance of Secretary Clinton’s visit is that Hawaii is the place to talk about U.S. and Asia-Pacific relations.

“Because it’s halfway between Washington and the region, because of its ethnic make-up, and because it’s a welcoming beautiful environment. I think maybe Barack Obama has something to do with it as well,” said Morrison.

Hawaii News Now will bring live coverage of Secretary Clinton’s speech on Tuesday starting at 2:00 p.m. as well as on http://www.HawaiiNewsNow.com.

I hope you’ll visit GatewayPundit today. He’s retrieved the Geraldine Ferraro ‘racial gaffe’, re-presented all the heavy criticism that she and Hillary endured for it – including a statement from the one himself and many calls for Geraldine to resign.

Coakley in trouble? Pharma and HMO lobbyists to the rescue
By: Timothy P. Carney Examiner Columnist 01/09/10 1:55 PM EST
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama’s health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is at right (click here for a better view).
Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.
All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.
Those HMOs (like Aetna) or drug companies who don’t have lobbyists in Coakley’s top tier of fundraisers? They’re covered, because the host committee includes four lobbyists representing the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), two representing America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), and one representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
So think of these top donors to health-care reform’s 60th vote next time President Obama claims that he’s battling the special interests in this battle. The army listed below is on Obama’s side, and these clients will all benefit from “reform.”
Here are some of Coakley fundraiser hosts with some of their current health care clients:
• Thomas Boggs, Patton Boggs: Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Chuck Brain, Capitol Hill Strategies: Amgen, BIO, Merck, PhRMA
• Susan Brophy, Glover Park Group: Blue Cross, Pfizer
• Steven Champlin, Duberstein Group: AHIP, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis
• Licy Do Canto, Raben Group: Amgen
• Gerald Cassidy, Cassidy & Associates: U. Mass Memorial Health Care
• David Castagnetti, Mehlman, Vogel, Castagnetti: Abbot Labs, AHIP, Astra-Zenaca, General Electric, Humana, Merck, PhRMA.
• Steven Elmendorf, Elmendorf Strategies: Medicines Company, PhRMA, United Health
• Shannon Finley, Capitol Counsel: Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross, GE, PhRMA, Sanofi-Aventis.
• Heather Podesta, Heather Podesta & Partners: Cigna, Eli Lilly, HealthSouth
• Tony Podesta, Podesta Group: Amgen, GE, Merck, Novartis.
• Robert Raben, Raben Group: Amgen, GE.
If Coakley pulls it out, this is the crowd that will have brought her here. If health-care reform passes, this is the crew that will have won.

This isn’t any different than during the campaign when bambi’s thugs would misrepresent something Bill or Hillary said as something racist,and call for their tar and feathering at the very least. African Americans forgot just how much the Clintons had done for them when the opportunity to put an African American with no experience and no ethics into the White House. And if they could do it by falsely tarnishing Bill Clinton’s reputation along with Hillary’s so be it. It was a take no prisoners moment and not an honorable one at all.

And then bambi put his swollen foot in his mouth and made the “bitter and guns” comment. The shoe was then on the other foot and for once the media ran with it…thanks to Hillary’s camp pushing for equality.

Of course bambi cried wolf at that point and complained about Hillary exaggerating about this comment (conveniently forgetting that this was his overused M.O. that she had adopted. And let us not forget his over-the-top speeches whenever anything like a racist reverend or terrorist buddy threatened to dethrone the jackass.

All of course with the media’s blessing/continued Judas moments/bribes of thirty pieces of silver to do their dirty work for them.

And now it continues. More exaggerated and false interpretations of what might or might not have been said in contect, out of context, third hand, etc…etc…etc…

This is not a proud moment. It is a shameful one when the worst of the media and political hacks try to get their thirty minutes of fame for the umpteenth time.

a tidbit from the garbage book “- Obama’s assertion in “The Audacity of Hope” that he couldn’t make a decision to run without his wife Michelle on board wasn’t just hot air. “Obama adored his wife, genuinely believed she was his better half, that he’d be lost without her. … (H)e told his advisers more than once, ‘I’m not doing this if Michelle’s not comfortable.’ ” Obama literally started to cry at one point, thinking of the strain a presidential run could put on his family.”

He may still be crying at the strain of being a president, when he is not on a golf course, that is. But for his wife it is all fun and extravaganza!

Confloyd may be right, BC may have been coerced to do things for Obama because of Hillary. It may be a mutual destruction scenario too.

1:30 p.m. LOCAL / 6:30 p.m. ET Secretary Clinton delivers an address on the U.S. vision for Asia-Pacific multilateral engagement to the East-West Center, at the Imin Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
Pre-set time for cameras: 12:15-12:45 p.m. LOCAL at Imin Center-Jefferson Hall.
Final access time for writers and still photographers: 1:00 p.m. LOCAL at Imin Center-Jefferson Hall.
Press interested in attending must RSVP to caroline@beckercommunications.com. For more information, click here.

THE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. WITH GORDON DUGUID

Schumerism
—————————-
Definition: a tactic common among politicians of low moral character who tell you to your face that they will support you until the last dog dies, while secretly plotting your demise. Named after the senior senator from New York Charles Schumer who is notorious for that kind of depraved behavior and throwing monkey feces at anyone who outshines his sorry ass. Synonym: Judas.

Confloyd may be right, BC may have been coerced to do things for Obama because of Hillary. It may be a mutual destruction scenario too.
—————————
Pm 317: Can you elaborate on this? Mutual destruction for whom? And why? What is your theory? Because she was Secretary of State he had to fall in line or what?

Christ was wildly popular here, among both dems and republicans…a moderate and well spoken guy, Once he embraced the stimulus, the republican legislature here which is hard right, went berserk. Rubio is well known in Miami-Dade’s Hispanic community , but was unknown throughout the northern and central part of state. Rubio, however, got a big boost when the Diaz-Balart brothers, prominent Cuban politicians, withdrew their endorsement of Christ..Christ has been spiraling downward and Rubio ascending. Rubio is lucky dems can’t vote in t he republican primary or he would have no chance…it’s going to be very close imo.

wbboei, it is the usual philandering rumors(?) and since none were used by Obama thugs in the campaign itself, they may have(be) used(using) it in other ways to get BC in line. We don’t know what B and H have on Obama.

The sad truth revealed is revealed by the gold rush of big pharma and health care deform lobbyist money into Massachusetts money to save Coakley who has agreed to do their bidding, and to destroy her opponent who professes to speak for the people of Massachusetts rather than lobbyists is that whatever its past legacy may have been the sad truth is that the Democratic Party under Obama has become the friend of big business and the enemy of the American People. A party of Chuck Shumers to the American People as well as to Hillary. A party badly in need of the bums rush. And I will say the same thing about the Repblican Party if they revert to the tactics of Bush. But if they learn from that bitter defeat and if they cast out the old leadership in favor of a new breed of politicians and represent the American People then there is a ray of hope in the meantime. How we survive individually and as a county however is the great unanswered question because the harm Obama is doing to this country is irreversible. It was a case of the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time and the damage he is doing is megapolitical. We will emerge from these bitter lost years a poorer country and a more divided one. That will be the Obama legacy and they will be reluctant to say he was the first black president because by then all the cards will be on the table. I do not know where the democratic party goes from there. My guess is it will take them years to recover from this. And who in their right mind would vote for a group of people who will tell your one thing and do another. I am betting on the new generation of Republicans to turn this country in a different direction. I have no faith in the political status quo.

ABM 90: that meeting with Japan is important. The immediate issue is our military base in Okinawa. The larger issue is maintaining a strong alliance with them to counteract the rise of China within the reason, and preventing them from falling into that fold. The military alliance and economic co prosperity alliance is being threated by China on the one hand, and the demonstrable incompetence of Mr Obama which they have complained about in the past. The most obvious example was his appointment of an unqualified ambassador who was a money man for his campaign. They objected and threatened to refuse to accept this jackass as Ambassador. I forget how it ended but it was another misstep by the Nobel Prize winning flake.

wbboei, it is the usual philandering rumors(?) and since none were used by Obama thugs in the campaign itself, they may have(be) used(using) it in other ways to get BC in line. We don’t know what B and H have on Obama.
——————————————-
I am sure it goes both ways. I think what is needed to clean out the political system is some good gossip on the journalists. Turnabout is fair play, and why should they be allowed to lie cheat and steal. They are no better than big pharma manipulating the system to advance their own agenda at the expense of the public and subverting the democratic process.

I love the way Brown handed Gerghen the Goofball his hat on that silly loaded question about the Kennedy seat. He made Gerghen look like the narrow minded belt way driven anti American jackass we know he is. It visibly deflated him.